- Final Draft - International Single Species Action Plan ... · Contributors to the International...

UNEP/CMS/StC48/Doc.18/Annex 3

1

________________________________________________ ANNEX 3

TECHNICAL SERIES

No. XX (CMS)

No. XX (AEWA)

No. 1 (EAAFP)

- Final Draft -

International Single Species Action Plan for the

Conservation of the Dalmatian Pelican

Pelecanus crispus

________________________________________________________________________________


2

Convention on the Conservation of

Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

Agreement on the Conservation of

African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA)

Council directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of

wild birds (Birds Directive) of the

European Union (EU)

East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP)

Draft International Single Species Action Plan for

the Conservation of the Dalmatian Pelican

Pelecanus crispus

CMS Technical Series No. XX

AEWA Technical Series No. XX

EAAFP Technical Report No. 1

April 2018

Produced by

Society for the Protection of Prespa

Hellenic Ornithological Society

With a special contribution from

Wetlands International

Prepared in the framework of the

EuroSAP (LIFE14 PRE/UK/000002) LIFE preparatory project, coordinated by

BirdLife International and co-financed by the European Commission Directorate

General for the Environment, and the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat, through a grant by

the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea of Italy


3

Adopting Frameworks:

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA)

European Union (EU)

East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP)

The Action Plan was prepared in the framework of EuroSAP (LIFE14 PRE/UK/000002), a LIFE preparatory

project, co-financed by the European Commission Directorate General for the Environment, the Secretariat of the

African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), through a grant by the Ministry of the Environment

and the Protection of Land and Sea of Italy, and by each of the project partners, and coordinated by BirdLife

International.

Organisations leading on the production of the plan and donors supporting the planning process:

Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP), Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS), BirdLife International,

African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), and European Commission, Directorate General for

the Environment; special contribution from Wetlands International.

Compilers: Giorgos Catsadorakis1 and Danae Portolou2 1Society for the Protection of Prespa and Pelican Specialist Group /WI - IUCN SSC, Lemos, GR- 53077 Agios

Germanos, Greece, [email protected] 2Hellenic Ornithological Society, 80 Themistokleous st, GR-10681 Athens, Greece, [email protected]

Contributors to the International Single Species Action Plan:

List of contributors and their affiliations from each country; * denotes participants in the AEWA Species Action

Planning Workshop for the Conservation of the Dalmatian Pelican,22-24 November 2016, Lithotopos, Lake

Kerkini, Greece.

Albania: Taulant Bino*, Albanian Ornithological Society; Ardian Koci*, National Agency of Protected Areas,

Ministry of Environment; Kujtim Mersini, Protection & Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania

(PPNEA).

Armenia: Mamikon Ghasabyan and Tsovinar Hovhannisyan, Armenian Society for the Protection of Birds

(BirdLife partner).

Azerbaijan: Elchin Sultanov*, Azerbaijan Ornithological Society (AOS) (BirdLife partner).

Bulgaria: Svilen Cheshmedjiev*, Petar Iankov and Stoycho Stoychev, Bulgarian Society for the Protection of

Birds (BirdLife partner).

France: Alain Crivelli*, Research Director, Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Ksenija Putilin and Metodija Velevski Macedonian Ecological

Society (BirdLife partner).

Georgia: Alexander Rukhaia, SABUKO - Society for Nature Conservation/ BirdLife Georgia.

Greece: Olga Alexandrou*, Giorgos Catsadorakis* and Thanos Kastritis*, Society for the Protection of Prespa;

Eleni Giakoumi*, Dionyssia Hatzilacou, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change Greece;

Theodoros Naziridis*, Management Body of the National Park of Lake Kerkini; Danae Portolou*, Hellenic

Ornithological Society (HOS) (BirdLife partner).

India: Asad Rahmani*, Bombay Natural History Society.

Iran: Hamid Amini*, Sadegh Sadeghi Zadegan*, Wildlife and Biodiversity Bureau, Department of Environment.

Iraq: Mudhafar Salim, Nature Iraq.

Kazakhstan: Altay Zhatkanbayev*, Institute of Zoology, Committee of Science, Ministry of Education and

Science.

Montenegro: Marina Miskovic-Spahic, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism; Darko Saveljic, CZIP

(BirdLife partner); Nela Vesovic-Dubak, Public Enterprise for National Parks of Montenegro; Andrej Vizi,

Natural History Museum of Montenegro.

Pakistan: Saeed Akhtar Baloch*, WWF – Pakistan; Muhammad Jamshed Iqbal Chaudhry, WWF – Pakistan;

Muhammad Samar Hussain Khan*, Ministry of Climate Change, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.


4

Romania: Sebastian Bugariu, Romanian Ornithological Society (SOR) (BirdLife partner); Mihai Marinov*,

Danube Delta National Institute for Research (DDNI); Nela Miauta*, Ministry of Environment, Romania.

Russian Federation: Alexei Ebel, Altai Birder; Yurii Lokhman, Kuban Scientific-Research Center «Wild Nature

of the Caucasus»; Sergej Soloviev*, Omsk State University, Russian Federation; Vladimir Tarasov, Institute of

Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Turkey: Ümit Bolat*, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs; Itri Levent Erkol, DogaDernegi (BirdLife partner);

Ortaç Onmuş*, Ege University, Department of Biology, Natural History Museum.

Turkmenistan: Eldar Rustamov, National Expert for Wetlands and Coordinator of IWC, Turkmen Association of

Hunters.

United Kingdom: Anna Staneva*, BirdLife International.

Ukraine: Antonina Rudenko,Dzharylgachsky National Nature Park; Ivan Rusev, Ukrainian Society for the

Protection of Birds (BirdLife partner) / National Nature Park "Tuzlovsky Limany",

Uzbekistan: Roman Kashkarov, Uzbekistan Society for the Protection of Birds (BirdLife partner); Yevgenya

Lanovenko, Institute of Zoology, Uzbek Academy of Sciences.

UNEP/AEWA Secretariat: Sergey Dereliev

List of observers in the AEWA International Single Species Action Planning Workshop for the Conservation of

the Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus crispus), 22-24 November 2016, Lithotopos, Lake Kerkini, Greece:

Albania: Sajmir Hoxha, Noé Conservation.

Greece: Dimitris Barelos, Management Body of Amvrakikos Wetlands; Katerina Christopoulou, Society for the

Protection of Prespa; Lila Karta, Management Body of the Lakes Koronia and Volvi National Park; Eva Katrana,

Management Body of the National Park of Axios - Loudias – Aliakmonas Delta; Eleni Makrigianni, Management

Body of the National Wetland Park of Evros Delta.

Montenegro: Bjanka Prakljacic, Noé Conservation.

Data in the present ISSAP have incorporated information presented during the AEWA International Single

Species Action Planning Workshop for the Conservation of the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus, 22-24

November 2016 held at Lake Kerkini, Greece. These are noted in the text as “pers. comm.” or “in litt.” after the

name of the contributor.

The East Asian flyway population contribution was added after the conclusion of the Kerkini workshop and was

coordinated regionally by Taej Mundkur (Wetlands International) and Doug Watkins (Northeast Institute of

Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences).

The national coordinators for the East Asian flyway population contribution are as follows:

Mongolia: Nyambayar Batbayar, Wildlife Science and Conservation Centre.

China: Cao Lei, Research Centre for Eco-environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Doug Watkins,

Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences -Changchun and Wetlands

International; Lu Yong, Wetlands International; with contributions from: Vivian Fu and Yu Yat Tung, The Hong

Kong Birdwatching Society / BirdLife International; Simba Chan, BirdLife Asia; Taej Mundkur, Wetlands

International.

Part of the information about the East Asian Dalmatian Pelican population has been drawn from the following

source: Mundkur, T., Watkins, D., Batbayar, N., Lei, C., Fu, V., Tung, Y-Y., Chan, S., Yong, L. 2017a.

Conservation Planning for the Critically Endangered East Asian population of the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus

crispus. Contribution to an International Single Species Action Plan. Unpublished draft report to AEWA.

Information has been also drawn from: Batbayar, N., C. Lei, T. Mundkur and D. Watkins, 2017. Answers to

Questionnaire on the Status of Dalmatian pelican in Mongolia and China.Unpublished draft report to AEWA

Secretariat and EAAFP Secretariat.

Also acknowledged is the rapid provision of Dalmatian Pelican observations in China by Liu Guanhua, Richard

Lewthwaite, Jiang Keyi, Terry Townshend, Zhao Yongqiang, Cui Peng, Zhou Minjun, Zhang Guoqiang, Jiao


5

Shengwu, Zhi Fu and Zhang Xiqing, and members of the China Coastal Waterbird Census Team. Spike

Millington, EAAFP Secretariat for initiating discussion about opportunity and guidance from Nina Mikander and

Sergey Dereliev (UNEP/AEWA Secretariat).

Date of adoption:

- Adopted by the NADEG meeting on the 22-23 May 2018 for Member States of the European Union

- [Adopted by the 48th meeting of the CMS Standing Committee on 23-24 October 2018]

- [Adopted at the 7th Session of the Meeting of the AEWA Parties in South Africa, 4-8 December 2018]

- [Adopted by the 10th Session of the Meeting of the Partners to EAAFP, 9-14 December 2018]

Lifespan of Plan: 2018-2027

Milestones in the production of the Plan

Species Action Planning Workshop: 22-24 November 2016, Lake Kerkini, Greece.

First draft: April 2017; circulated to the workshop participants.

Second draft: January 2018; circulated to the Principal Range States for consultation.

Final draft: presented to the AEWA Technical Committee at its 14th Meeting on 10-13 April 2018 and the AEWA

Standing Committee at its 13th Meeting on 03-05 July 2018

Please send any additional information or comments regarding this International Species Action Plan to Dr.

Giorgos Catsadorakis, email: [email protected]

Recommended citation

Catsadorakis, G. and Portolou, D. (compilers). 2018. International Single Species Action Plan the Conservation

of the Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus crispus). CMS Technical Series No. XX, AEWA Technical Series No. XX.

EAAFP Technical Report No. 1. Bonn, Germany and Incheon, South Korea.

Photo cover

Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus crispus) © G. Catsadorakis / SPP

EuroSAP is a LIFE preparatory project, co-financed by the European Commission Directorate General for the

Environment, the Secretariat of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), through a grant

by the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea of Italy, and by each of the project partners

and coordinated by BirdLife International.

Disclaimer

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of

any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP/CMS Secretariat, UNEP/AEWA Secretariat, European Commission

and EAAFP Secretariat, concerning the legal status of any State, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or

concerning the delimitation of their frontiers and boundaries.

[This publication can be downloaded from the CMS, AEWA, EC and EAAFP websites

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm) and is available on

the Species Action Plans Tracking Tool: http://trackingactionplans.org/]

http://trackingactionplans.org/


6

Contents

1. BASIC DATA ................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Species and populations covered by the Plan ............................................................................... 8

1.2 List and map of Principal Range States ........................................................................................ 8

1.3 Global, Regional and sub-regional Red List status....................................................................... 9

1.4 International legal status (as applicable, with regard to geographic range of the species/population

in question) ....................................................................................................................................... 11

2. FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION .................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Goal ............................................................................................................................................ 13

2.2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Annex 1. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 24

Annex 1.1 Distribution throughout the annual cycle ........................................................................ 24

Annex 1.2 Habitat requirements ....................................................................................................... 24

Annex 1.3 Survival and productivity ................................................................................................ 24

Annex 1.4 Population size and trend ................................................................................................ 25

Annex 2: PROBLEM ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 29

Annex 2.1 General overview ............................................................................................................ 29

Annex 2.2 Threats relating to reduced adult survival ....................................................................... 31

Annex 2.3 Threats relating to reduced reproduction output ............................................................. 33

Annex 2.4 Threats relating to habitat loss and degradation .............................................................. 36

Annex 2.5 Knowledge gaps and needs ............................................................................................. 37

Annex 3: JUSTIFICATION OF CONSERVATION and/or MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .......... 41

Annex 3.1 Business-as-usual scenario (no recovery or control measures taken) ............................. 41

Annex 3.2 Action Plan implementation scenario ............................................................................. 42

Annex 4. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 44


7

List of acronyms/abbreviations

AEWA Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds

AF Afghanistan

AL Albania

AR Armenia

AZ Azerbaijan

BG Bulgaria

CN China

CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

DP Dalmatian Pelican

EA East Asia

EAAFP East-Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership

GE Georgia

GR Greece

HOS Hellenic Ornithological Society

IN India

IR Iran, Islamic Republic of

IQ Iraq

ISSAP International Single Species Action Plan

KZ Kazakhstan

ME Montenegro

MK FYR Macedonia

MN Mongolia

PK Pakistan

RO Romania

RU Russian Federation

SEE South-Eastern Europe

TM Turkmenistan

TR Turkey

UA Ukraine

UZ Uzbekistan

WA Western Asia


8

1. BASIC DATA

1.1 Species and populations covered by the Plan

The Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus crispus) populations of the world fall within three flyways:

• South-Eastern Europe (SEE): the Black Sea – Mediterranean flyway which includes the

short-distance migrating populations of SE Europe

• Western Asia (WA): the purely migratory populations of the W and SW Asia flyway,

which breed mainly in Russia and Kazakhstan and spend the non-breeding period

mainly in Iran, Pakistan and India

• East Asia (EA): the East Asia flyway, which breed in Mongolia and spend the non-

breeding period in China.

1.2 List and map of Principal Range States1

Map 1: Breeding and non-breeding distribution as well as flyway routes of the Dalmatian

Pelican (Source: Modified and updated from BirdLife International, 2017)

1Each Contracting Party to AEWA is equally responsible under the Agreement for all the AEWA species/popu-

lations they host as per the obligations set out in the AEWA legal text. All the countries which host a specific

species (whether in small or large numbers) are considered Range States for that species. The identification of

Principle Range States in AEWA Action Plans, is an approach used to prioritize coordinated international conser-

vation efforts to those countries considered to be crucial for ensuring the favourable conservation status of the

species/population in question.

It should be noted that, under no circumstances does the identification of Principle Range States in AEWA Inter-

national Species Action Plans, diminish the legal obligations of potential remaining Range States which are Con-

tracting Parties to AEWA to equally ensure the adequate protection and conservation of the species/populations

in question, including through implementation of relevant actions from the respective Species Action Plan


9

Principal Range States: (B=breeding states, W=wintering states, M=migration states):

Albania (B-W), Azerbaijan (W-M), Bulgaria (B-W-M), China (W-M), Georgia (B-W-M),

Greece (B-W), India (W), Islamic Republic of Iran (W), Kazakhstan (B), Mongolia (B),

Montenegro (B-W), Pakistan (W-M), Romania (B-W-M), Russian Federation (B-W-M),

Turkey (B), Ukraine (B), Uzbekistan (W-M).

Many hundreds of birds breeding in the Greek part of the Lake Lesser Prespa (largest

Dalmatian pelican colony on Earth) use the part of the trans-boundary Lake Prespa belonging

to the FYR of Macedonia to feed, but this country is not considered as a PRS. Similar situations

may occur in transboundary waterbodies in other parts of its range.

Range States hosting breeding and/or non-breeding numbers below the 1% of the

biogeographic population threshold as identified during the action- or management-

planning process: Afghanistan, Armenia, FYR of Macedonia, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,

Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

1.3 Global, Regional and sub-regional Red List status

On 1/10/2017 the species was downgraded to “Near Threatened” (BirdLife International. 2017.

Pelecanus crispus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017:

e.T22697599A119401118.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-

3.RLTS.T22697599A119401118.en. Downloaded on 21 December 2017. In 2016 the species

had been was classified as ‘Vulnerable’ in the global IUCN Red List (A2c,e; A3c,e; A4c,e;

version 3.1, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-

1.<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 28 August 2016). In 2000-2004 it had been

classified as ‘Low Risk / Conservation Dependent’ when such a category existed.

In the European Red List Assessment of 2015 the species was downgraded from ‘Vulnerable’

to ‘Least Concern’. The same holds for the EU27 Regional Assessment (BirdLife International

2015. European Red List Assessment Pelecanus crispus; downloaded from

http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/erlob/summarypdfs/22697599_pelecanus_cr

ispus.pdf

However, the East Asian population is continuing to decline and is considered to be Critically

Endangered (Gombobaatar & Monks 2011) and may be extinct within a few decades.

Table 1. National Red List status of the Dalmatian Pelican in the Principal Range

States.

Country

/Territory

National Red

List Status

Reference

Albania «Critically

Endangered»

Ministry of Environment. 2013. The Red List of the Flora

and Fauna of Albania. Order No. 1280, dated 20.11.2013.

http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/erlob/summarypdfs/22697599_pelecanus_crispus.pdf

http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/erlob/summarypdfs/22697599_pelecanus_crispus.pdf


10

Azerbaijan «Category and

status II.1»

Sensitive species,

limited in

numbers.

Red Data Book of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Rare and

endangered animal species. 2nd edition. 2016. Ministry of

Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan Republic,

Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Science. 518 p.

Bulgaria «Critically

Endangered»;

criterion

B1a+B2a+D

Golemanski, V. (ed.). 2011. Red Data Book of the

Republic of Bulgaria, vol. 2, Animals. BAS-MOEW, Sofia.

Available at: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol2/;

China «2nd Level» Chinese National Important Protected Wildlife List. 2000.

Georgia «Endangered» Georgian Red List. Georgian Legislative Herald N19

01.07. 2003.

Greece «Vulnerable»;

criterion D2

Legakis, A. & P. Maragou (eds). 2009. The Red Data Book

of the Threatened Fauna of Greece. Hellenic Zoological

Society, Athens. Available at:

https://www.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/red-book-intro.pdf

India «Protected» Protected under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,

Government of India.

I.R. Iran «Endangered» Game and Fish Law.

Iraq «Protected» General environmental legislation stands, however there is

no law or regulation dedicated to the protection of birds in

general or this species in particular in Iraq.

Kazakhstan «Category II»

(abundant, but

quickly declining

and may reach

Category I)

[Red Data Book of the Republic of Kazakhstan]

(2008/2010) (in Kazakhi).

Mongolia «Critically

Endangered»

Gombobaatar & Monks (compilers). 2011. Regional Red

List Series. Vol. 7. Birds. Zoological Society of London,

National University of Mongolia and Mongolian

Ornithological Society (in English and Mongolian).

Shiirevdamba, T., Y. Adiya & E. Ganbol (eds). 2013.

Mongolian Red Book. Ministry of Environment and Green

Development of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar.

Montenegro «Protected» No National Red List of birds exists. Dalmatian pelican is

officially protected by the Decision on Protected Species of

Flora and Fauna, page 23. Official Gazette link:

(http://www.sluzbenilist.me/PravniAktDetalji.aspx?tag=%7

B43FC514F-EA49-4B25-82C8-FAE638FECB23%7D)

Romania «Critically

Endangered»

Botnariuc, N. & V. Tatole (eds). 2005. [Red Book

of Romania’s vertebrates] .“Cartea roşie a vertebratelor din

România”. Editura Academiei Române şi Muzeul Naţional

Istorie. Naturală “Grigore Antipa”, Bucharest (in

Romanian).

Protected by:

http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol2/

https://www.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/red-book-intro.pdf

http://www.sluzbenilist.me/PravniAktDetalji.aspx?tag=%7B43FC514F-EA49-4B25-82C8-FAE638FECB23%7D

http://www.sluzbenilist.me/PravniAktDetalji.aspx?tag=%7B43FC514F-EA49-4B25-82C8-FAE638FECB23%7D


11

• The Government Emergency Ordinance No. 57/2007 on

the regime of protected natural habitats, conservation of

natural habitats of flora and fauna approved with

amendments by Law No. 49/2011 as amended and

supplemented.

• The Law No. 89/2000 authorizing the ratification of the

Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian

Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA)

Russian

Federation

«Declining»

Category 2

[The Red Data Book of Russia] (in Russian).

Pakistan «Protected» Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1972 (Schedule II)

and Balochistan Province Wildlife Protection Act 1974

(Schedule III)

Turkey Breeding:

«Vulnerable»

(A3c; D1)

Wintering:

«Vulnerable»

(A3a)

Kılıç, D. T. & Eken, G. 2004. Update of Important Bird

Areas of Turkey [Türkiye’nin Önemli Kuş Alanları, 2004

Güncellemesi], Doğa Derneği, Ankara.

Ukraine «Endangered» [The Red Data Book of Ukraine]. (In Ukrainian). Accessi-

ble at:

http://redbook-ua.org/item/pelecanus-crispus-bruch/

In almost all countries where Dalmatian Pelicans occur they enjoy full protection from every

kind of harmful human activity, to adults, fledged birds, chicks and the nesting sites. In Russia

there is no clear protection from disturbance, while only in Iraq the species is totally

unprotected, since there are no specific protection laws for any bird species. In the majority of

countries where it occurs, regardless of its protection status, it would benefit from strengthened

law enforcement.

1.4 International legal status (as applicable, with regard to geographic range of the species/popula-

tion in question).

Legal

instrument

CMS CITES AEWA Bern

Convention

EU Birds

Directive*

Listing Appendix I

& II

Appendix I Column A,

Categories

1a, 1b & 1c

Appendix II Annex I

*Council directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive)

As the Dalmatian Pelican is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, the species should be

subject of special conservation measures concerning its habitats in order to ensure survival and

reproduction in its area of distribution. EU Member States should classify in particular the most

http://redbook-ua.org/item/pelecanus-crispus-bruch/


12

suitable territories in number and size as Special Protection Areas for the conservation of the

species.

Member States shall also take the requisite measures to establish a general system of protection

for the Dalmatian Pelican, prohibiting in particular deliberate killing or capture by any method

or keeping birds; deliberate destruction of, or damage to, species nests and eggs or removal of

nests, taking eggs in the wild and keeping these eggs even if empty; deliberate disturbance

particularly during the period of breeding and rearing, in so far as disturbance would be

significant having regard to the objectives of this Directive. Derogations from these provisions

may be possible in the absence of other satisfactory solutions, for particular reasons, specified

in the Directive.


13

2. FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

2.1 Goal

Downlist the Dalmatian Pelican to the “Least Concern” category of the IUCN Red List and

from Column A, Category 1 of the AEWA Table 1”.

2.2 Purpose

● South-Eastern Europe (SEE): Keep the increasing trend, achieve 10% increase of population

size and establish 3-4 new colonies

● Western Asia (WA): Establish better knowledge on the population size, trend and distribu-

tion while preventing decline in the population from the currently estimated size

● Eastern Asia (EA): Establish better knowledge on the distribution and population size, un-

derstand the causes of decline and stop and reverse the decline of the population.

Table 2: Framework for Action. Two character ISO 3166 codes for countries used (see page

7)

KEY

Priority:

E: Essential

H: High

M: Medium

L: Low

Time scales:

Immediate (I): launched within the next year.

Short (S): launched within the next 3 years.

Medium (M): launched within the next 5 years.

Long (L): launched within the next >5 years.

Ongoing (O): currently being implemented and should continue

Rolling (R): to be implemented perpetually (any action above from immediate to ongoing can

be also qualified as rolling)

Direct

problem

Objective 1: Increase the survival of birds

Result Action Priority Time scale Organisatio

ns

responsible

Reduced

(adult)

survival

Result 1.1.

Illegal killing is

minimised

1.1.1. Strengthen

enforcement of legislation

regarding trade of body

parts and derivatives

Critical

(MN)

High (CN)

Immediate-

Rolling

Environment

Authorities


14

Applicable to: PK, IN,

ME, MN, CN, IR

Low (PK,

IN, ME, IR)

1.1.2. Increase awareness

amongst local population


KZ, RU, IR, MN, CN,

AZ, GE, RO

Critical

(MN, CN),

Low (All

but MN &

CN)

Immediate-

Rolling (MN,

CN)

High (RO)

Short-Rolling

(All but MN &

CN)

NGOs and

environment

authorities


of and provide training to

relevant departments to

enforce regulations on

illegal international trade

Applicable to: KZ, RU,

MN, CN

Critical

(MN, CN)

Low (KZ,

RU)

Immediate-

Rolling (MN,

CN)

Short-Rolling

(KZ, RU)

Environment

authorities


of local administrations

regarding regulations on

illegal killing

Applicable to: PK, TM,

MN, CN, RU, AZ, GE

Critical

(MN, CN)

Medium

(PK)

Low (All

other)

Immediate-

Rolling (MN,

CN)

Short-Rolling

(All other)

Environment

authorities

1.1.5. Strengthen

enforcement of

regulations regarding

illegal killing


KZ, RU, IR, GR, AL, BG,

TR, AZ, MN, CN, GE

Critical

(MN)

High (CN)

Low (All

but MN &

CN)

Immediate-

Rolling

Environment

authorities

Ηuman-

pelican

conflicts

1.1.6. Promote the use of

and implement deterring

methods for pelicans at

fish farms or other fishing

locations

Applicable to: GR, RO,

RU, AZ, CN, IR, ME

High (CN)

Low (All

but CN)

Immediate

(CN)

Medium

(All but CN)

Environment

authorities

and

agriculture

authorities


amongst the hunting

community

Low Medium Environment

authorities

and hunting

organisation

s


15

Applicable to: BG, TM,

UZ, IR, AZ, GE

Power line

collision

Result 1.2

Mortality on

power lines is

minimised

1.2.1. Assess the presence,

magnitude and impact of

power lines on DP

Applicable to: ALL

Ηigh (ΜΝ

& CN)

Medium

(All but

MN and

CN)

Immediate Environment

authorities

and research

institutes

1.2.2. Following the

results of the assessment

(1.2.1) undertake

mitigation measures at

selected sites

Applicable to: countries –

as necessary

High (All) Immediate (MN

& CN)

Medium

(All but MN &

CN)

Environment

authorities

1.2.3. Undertake review of

domestic legislation and

regulations with respect to

avoiding and mitigating

bird mortality on power

lines


as necessary

High (MN

& CN)

Medium

(All but

MN & CN)

Immediate (MN

& CN)

Medium (All

but MN & CN)

Environment

authorities

1.2.4. Based on the

outcomes of the review,

undertake adjustment of

domestic legislation as

needed to accommodate

legislative requirements

for avoidance and

mitigation


as necessary

High (MN

& CN)

Medium

(All but

MN &CN)

Immediate (MN

& CN)

Long (All but

MN & CN)

Environment

and energy

authorities

1.2.5. Respond to potential

negative impacts from

powerlines using

Ramsar’s Avoid-

Minimise-Compensate

planning framework2

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Short / Rolling Environment

and planning

agencies;

energy

authorities

2 For details, see Gardner et al. 2013 (available online at http://ramsar.rgis.ch/bn/bn3.pdf)

http://ramsar.rgis.ch/bn/bn3.pdf


16

Windfarm

collision

Result 1.3

Mortality from

windfarms is

assessed and

minimised

1.3.1. Monitor and

estimate the impact of

existing windfarms on DP

Applicable to: BG, PK,

GR, TR, AZ, IR, RO

Medium

Low (IR)

Immediate Environment

authorities

and research

institutes

1.3.2. Establish and

implement robust

windfarm planning

process at national level

following international

guidelines, such as

adopted under CMS and

AEWA


IN, GR, IR, ME, AL, TR,

AZ, MN, CN, GE

Critical

(CN)

Medium

(All but

CN)

Immediate (CN)

Short (All but

CN)

Environment

and energy

authorities

1.3.3. Based on the results

of the monitoring under

Action 1.3.1. take

appropriate measures to

mitigate or avoid the

impact as necessary


IN, GR, IR, ME, AL, TR,

AZ, MN, CN, GE

High (CN)

Medium

(All but

CN)

Immediate (CN)

Medium (All

but CN,MN)

Environment

and energy

authorities



windfarms using Ramsar’s

Avoid-Minimise-

Compensate planning

framework3

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Short / Rolling Environment

and planning

agencies;

energy

authorities

Depleted fish

stocks

Result 1.4.

Fish stocks

recover in sites

where

previously have

been depleted


implement water

management regimes that

are favourable for DP

Applicable to: BG, TR, IR,

AL, ME

Medium Short - Μedium Environment

and energy

authorities


implement community or

government initiatives as

Critical

(ME)

Short Environment

Authorities

3 For details, see Gardner et al. 2013 (available online at http://ramsar.rgis.ch/bn/bn3.pdf )


17

appropriate for fish stock

recovery and sustainable

use

Applicable to: BG, IN,

KZ, PK, RU, IR, AL, RO,

ME, MN.

High (MN)

Medium

(All but

ME, MN)

&Agricultur

al authorities



unfavourable water

management regimes

using Ramsar’s Avoid-

Minimise-Compensate

planning framework4

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Short - Rolling Environment

and planning

agencies

Avian

influenza

Result 1.5.

Risk of avian

influenza

transmission is

minimised


enforce strict biosafety

measures on poultry

farms, slaughterhouses

and fish farms following

international guidelines

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Immediate -

Rolling

Environment

Authorities

and

veterinary

services


amongst hunters and local

communities at DP sites

regarding avian influenza

transmission prevention

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Immediate Environment

Authorities

and

veterinary

services

Cyanotoxins Result 1.6.

The risk of

cyanotoxin

poisoning is

minimised

1.6.1. Reduce frequency

and intensity of blue-green

algae blooms by

establishing and

implementing nutrient

pollution reduction plans

at site levels

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Medium Environment

Authorities

and site

management

bodies

Botulism Result 1.7.

The risk of die-

offs due to

botulism is

minimised

Actions 1.4.1. and 1.6.1.

will contribute to

achieving this result



18

By-catch in

fishing gear

Result 1.8.

The risk of by-

catch in fishing

gear is

minimised

1.8.1 Strengthen

enforcement of regulations

regarding illegal fishing

practices

Applicable to: ME, IR,

BG, PK, IN, KZ, AZ, MN,

GE

High (MN)

Low (All

but MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Site

management

bodies,

fisheries

inspectorates

Human

disturbance

(at roost sites

and feeding

areas)

Result 1.9.

Disturbance at

roost sites is

minimised


enforce safety distances

around roost sites, where

necessary and feasible.

Applicable to: BG, TR,

ME, IR, KZ, RU, AL,

MN, CN, GE

Critical

(MN)

High (CN)

Medium

(All but

MN, CN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Short (CN)

Site

management

bodies

1.9.2. Create suitable roost

sites where missing

Applicable to: as

applicable to Range States

High (MN,

CN)

Medium

(All but

MN, CN)

Short (MN, CN)

Immediate (All

but MN, CN)

Environment

Authorities,

site

management

bodies and

research

institutes

1.9.3. Raise awareness

amongst fishermen,

hunters shepherds and

tourism professionals

Applicable to: BG, TR,

ME, IR, KZ, RU, AL,

MN, CN, GE, RO

High

Medium

(BG, RO)

Immediate -

Rolling

Environment

authorities

and site

management

bodies

Direct

problem Objective 2: Increase the reproduction output

Human

disturbance

(at colonies)

Result 2.1

Human

disturbance at

breeding

colonies is

minimised and

as much as

possible

avoided

2.1.1. Protect all breeding

sites under domestic legis-

lation

Applicable to: UA, RU,

TR, MN, GE

Critical

(MN)

High (All

but MN)

Immediate

(MN)

Short (All but

MN)

Environment

authorities

2.1.2. Enforce strict con-

trol and prevent access to

colonies during the breed-

ing season

Applicable to: ALL breed-

ing range states

Critical

(MN)

High (All

but MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Environment

authorities

and site

management

bodies


19

2.1.3. Establish and imple-

ment standard methods

and protocol for colony

monitoring in order to,

among others, avoid un-

necessary disturbance

Applicable to: ALL breed-

ing range states

Critical

(MN)

High (All

but MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

AEWA

Dalmatian

Pelican

International

Working

Group

(AEWA DP

IWG) and

SEA

Flooding of

colonies

Result 2.2

The risk of

flooding is

minimised

2.2.1. Place floating rafts

or provide extra nest

material at sites with high

risk of frequent flooding

Applicable to: as

necessary

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(All but

MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Environment

authorities

and site

management

bodies

Action 1.4.1. will also

contribute to achieving

this result

Predation of

eggs and

chicks

Result 2.3

Predation of

eggs and chicks

is minimised

2.3.1. Establish control

programmes for alien

invasive predators at DP

sites

Applicable to: RO, RU,

BG, MN, UA, ME

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(ME)

Low (All

but MN)

Immediate

(MN)

Medium

(ME)

Short - Rolling

(All but MN)

Environment

authorities

and site

management

bodies

2.3.2. Establish control

programmes for cattle

(MN) and for stray dogs

(TR) at DP sites

Applicable to: TR, MN,

ME, GE

Critical

(MN)

Low (TR,

ME, GE)

Immediate-

Rolling (MN)

Short - Rolling

(TR)

Long - Rolling

(ME)

Ministry of

Forestry -

NPA

2.3.3. Provide artificial

breeding substrate

(platforms or rafts) or full

fencing around colonies at

sites with frequent

incidents of predation by

native mammalian

predators

Applicable to: countries as

necessary

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(All but

MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Environment

authorities

and site

management

bodies


20

Actions 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.

will also contribute to

achieving this result

Reedbed fires Result 2.4

Reedbed fires

do not impact

DP colonies

2.4.1. Strictly enforce ban

on reedbed fires at DP

sites

Applicable to: ALL

relevant breeding range

states

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(All but

MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Agricultural

authorities

and forest

authorities

2.4.2. Create fire breaks

around DP colonies at

sites with frequent

incidents or risk of fires

Applicable to: ALL

relevant breeding range

states

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(All but

MN)

Low

(ME)

Immediate -

Rolling (All but

ME)

Long - Rolling

(ME)

Site

management

bodies


amongst various wetland

users (shepherds, hunters,

fishermen, farmers) and

local communities

Applicable to: ALL

relevant breeding RS

Critical

(MN)

High (All

but MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Environment

authorities

and site

management

bodies

Lack of

sufficient or

suitable

breeding

substrate

Result 2.5

The increase

and expansion

of the DP

population size

and area of

occupancy is

not limited by

lack of suitable

breeding

substrate

2.5.1. Establish and/or

maintain sufficient

number of artificial

breeding substrate with

appropriate design at sites

where is necessary and

appropriate

Applicable to: countries as

necessary

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(All but

MN)

Immediate -

Rolling

Site

management

bodies

2.5.2. Compile,

disseminate and update as

necessary guidelines on

artificial nesting structures

Applicable to:

Internationally

Medium Immediate -

Rolling

AEWA DP

IWG

Destruction of

eggs and

Result 2.6

Destruction of

eggs and chicks

Actions 2.1.2 will


this result

Medium Immediate -

Rolling

Site-

management

bodies


21

chicks by

humans

by humans is

avoided

Applicable to: GR, KZ

Illegal

collection of

eggs and

chicks

Result 2.7

Illegal

collection of

eggs and chicks

is prevented

Actions 2.1.2 will


this result

Applicable to: ME

Medium Immediate -

Rolling

Site-

management

bodies

Mortality at

breeding

platforms and

rafts

Result 2.8

Mortality

caused by

artificial

nesting

structures is

minimised

2.8.1. Replace unsuitable

platforms causing

accidents with better

designed

Applicable to: TR, MN

Medium

(MN)

Low (TR)

Immediate NPA

Direct

problem

Objective 3: Prevent further habitat loss and degradation

Unfavourable

water

management,

urbanization

and

infrastructure

development,

land use

change,

unfavourable

site

management,

droughts,

pollution,

spread of

alien invasive

plants and

fish

Result 3.1

No important

DP sites

throughout the

flyways are

subject to land

use change,

unfavourable

water

management,

urbanisation

and

infrastructure

development,

pollution,

impact of

invasive alien

plants and fish

and

unfavourable

management

practices

3.1.1. Designate all

important DP sites as

protected areas under

domestic legislation

Applicable to: CN, BG,

MN, IR, GE

Critical

(MN)

Medium

(IR)

High (All

others)

Immediate(MN)

Medium (IR)

Short (All

others)

Environment

authorities

3.1.2. Develop and

implement integrated

management plans at the

important DP sites taking

into account DP

conservation needs

Applicable to: All

High Medium -

Rolling

Environment

authorities,si

te

management

bodies and

research

institutes



unfavourable water

management regimes,

urbanisation and

infrastructure development

using Ramsar’s Avoid-

Minimise-Compensate

planning framework5

Applicable to: ALL

Medium Short - Rolling Environment

and planning

agencies

Direct

problem

Objective 4: Obtain knowledge and insights to inform planning of crucial conservation

measures



22

Existence of

knowledge

gaps and

needs

Result 4.1:

Breeding

distribution of

the EA and

WA

populations is

known

4.1.1. Organise land and

aerial surveys

Critical (all

WA and EA

breeding

Range

States)

Immediate NGOs,

SEAs,

research

institutes,

environment

authorities

and

universities

Result 4.2:

Population

size and trends

of all

populations is

known

4.2.1. Organise and carry

out land and aerial census

Critical

(all WA and

EA Range

States)

High (All

SEE Range

States)

Rolling NGOs and

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.3:

All basic

migration and

movements

routes and

phenology are

traced to detail

4.3.1. Ringing with

plastic & metal rings and

satellite transmitter

(GPS) studies

Critical

(MN, CN)

High (all

WA Range

States)

Short NGOs and

research

institutes

Result 4.4:

Winter

ecology is

better

understood

4.4.1. Study movements,

diet, roosting behaviour,

competition for food and

impact of weather in

winter.

Critical

(CN)

High (All

but CN)

Medium Universities,

NGOs,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.5:

Metapopulatio

ns are

delineated

4.5.1. Genetic

structure/diversity and

gene flow study of WA

and SEE populations

Critical

(WA

population)

High (SEE

population)


environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.6:

Survival

likelihoods of

each

population are

determined

4.6.1. Population

modelling of WA and

SEE populations

High (SEE

population)

Medium

(WA

population)


environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.7:

Impact of

windfarms is

determined

4.7.1. Study the impact of

windfarms on DP at key

bottleneck areas and

close to key breeding

sites

Medium

(SEE Range

States)

Short NGOs,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.8:

Impact of

powerlines is

determined

4.8.1. Study to locate key

mortality hot-spots and

assess overall impacts on

populations

High (SEE

Range

States)

Immediate NGOs,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.9:

Impact of

diseases and

4.9.1. Study to assess

impacts of diseases on

populations

Low (SEE

Range

States)

Medium Veterinary

services,

environment


23

parasites is

determined

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.10:

Impact of

heavy metals

is determined

4.10.1. Comparative

study of heavy metal

concentrations in living

and dead DPs

Low Long Veterinary

services,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

Result 4.11:

Impact of

interspecific

relations is

determined

4.11.1. Assess

competition for nesting

space between DP and

GWP

Medium

(SEE Range

States)

Low (WA

Range

States)

Short Universities,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

4.11.2. Assess

competition for nesting

space between DP and

Great Cormorant

Medium

(SEE Range

States)

High (EA

Range

States)

Short Universities,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes

4.11.3. Assess

competition for food

between DP and other

species of pelican.

Medium

(WA Range

States)

Short Universities,

environment

authorities

and research

institutes


24

Annex 1. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Annex 1.1 Distribution throughout the annual cycle

The Dalmatian Pelican occurs in the northern hemisphere, from Montenegro and Albania in

the west to the coastline of E-SE China in the east and in the central Omsk district of Russia to

the north, down to E India close to Mumbai in the south (Map 1). During the past 30 years the

species has been recorded to breed in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia,

Greece, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,

Ukraine and Uzbekistan. It starts to breed in late January (Balkans) up to mid-May (Mongolia)

usually in colonies of up to 400 pairs. Adults form monogamous pair bonds of annual duration.

They depart from the colonies between the end of July and September, although a few remain

until November. Gregarious during the winter, often occur in large flocks and forage singly or

communally in small groups, alone or with other species.

Annex 1.2 Habitat requirements

The species occurs mainly at inland, freshwater wetlands (lakes, inland estuaries, dam-lakes)

but also at coastal lagoons, shallow marine waters, river deltas and estuaries (del Hoyo et al.

1992, Crivelli et al. 1997). It nests on small islands or on semi-floating clumps of dense

emergent macrophytes such as Phragmites reeds (Crivelli 1994; Peja et al. 1996; Crivelli et al.

1997), always in places surrounded by water or deep mud. A few breed in Mediterranean

coastal lagoons (Peja et al. 1996). The species makes use of habitats surrounding its breeding

sites for feeding (Nelson 2005) and/or may travel up to <100 km to feed.

On migration, large lakes form important stop-over sites (Nelson 2005) but can stop at a large

variety of small to large wetlands, both natural and artificial. It typically winters on jheels and

lagoons in India, and ice-free lakes and coastal wetlands in Europe (del Hoyo et al. 1992) and

coastal areas of Oman and Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf in Iran, and eastern coastal areas

of China. A crucial habitat requirement for a site to be used at all by pelicans is the existence

of proper resting and roosting sites (Crivelli pers. comm.) such as islands and low sand or mud

bars free of vegetation.

Nests usually are up to 1m high and 0.6-1.0m in diameter, they usually consist of a pile of reeds

and stems of other aquatic macrophytes and are mostly in synchronised groups. The Dalmatian

Pelican feeds almost entirely on fish.

Annex 1.3 Survival and productivity

Egg-laying generally occurs within 10 days after arrival. The birds lay a clutch of two eggs

(range 1-4) and the average clutch size is 1.8. Incubation lasts 31–33 days and fledging takes

11–12 weeks (Crivelli et al. 1991, Crivelli et al. 1998). The main mortality during breeding

occurs at the egg stage (Crivelli 1987); hatching success varies from 35 to 70% (Crivelli et al.

1998). The DP can easily rear two chicks and fledging success in a well-protected colony is

over one chick per nest, up to a recorded maximum of 1.34 (Catsadorakis et al. 1996). With

the present state of knowledge of the population dynamics of pelicans it would appear that a

success rate of 0.8 chicks per nest should be at least sufficient to keep the population stable. A

success rate of over one chick per nest should ensure an increasing population (Crivelli 1987).

The annual survival rates for the populations of Prespa and Amvrakikos, Greece, were


25

estimated at 0.57 – 0.65 for juveniles and 0.87 – 0.95 for older individuals (Doxa et al. 2006,

Doxa et al. 2010)

Annex 1.4 Population size and trend

Τhe breeding population of the Dalmatia Pelican in the world is currently estimated at 7,347-

8,993 pairs, roughly corresponding to c. 27,000 individuals (this ISSAP). The SEE breeding

population is estimated at 2,831-3,094 pairs, the W Asian at 4,501-5,870 pairs and the E Asian

at 10-20 pairs. The size of the breeding population in Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine and

Montenegro is characterised as fluctuating, in Greece, Turkey, Albania and Kazakhstan as

increasing, and in Romania as stable. Non-breeding population estimates during the breeding

season are not available apart from Greece and SE Europe where recent censuses show that the

number of non-breeders present is very low and certainly less than 5% of the overall numbers

of adult birds present (Alexandrou et al. 2016)

IWC data show that for the period 2010-2015 at least 6,500 individuals over-winter annually

in SEE. In India and Pakistan there were 1,718-4,898 individuals counted during AWC in 2010-

2012 and in China (wintering sites of the E Asian population) no more than 2 individuals

(Mundkur et al. 2017), but up to 112 have been observed in November 2013 (China Coastal

Waterbird Census, provided by Vivian Fu). Wintering numbers in countries such as Russia,

Kazakhstan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, fluctuate hugely, depending on the degree birds are

forced to move to southern sites by prevailing weather conditions. For example, up to 8.585

and 9.997 individuals have been counted to overwinter in Iran in January 2008 and 2017

respectively (Hamid Amini pers.com.).

Increasing trends have been estimated for the wintering populations of the Black Sea and

Mediterranean flyway for the period 2000-2012, with a “Reasonable” trend quality (Wetlands

International 2018). Similarly, increasing trends were also estimated for the SW & S Asia

flyway for the period 1988-2015, albeit with “Poor” trend quality (Wetlands International

2018).


26

Table 2: Population size and trend by country

Country Minimum

Breeding

numbers

(pairs)

Maximum

Breeding

numbers

(pairs)

Quality

of data

Year(s) of the

estimate

Breeding

population trend

in the last 10

years (or 3

generations)

Quality

of data

Maximum size

of migrating or

non-breeding

populations in

the last 10 years

(or 3

generations)

Quality

of data

Year(s) of the

estimate

Migrating or

non-breeding

population

trend in the

last 10 years

Albania 51 53 Good

(observed) 2016

Increasing Good

(observed)

82-253 Good

(observed)

2004-2014

Bulgaria 70 120 Good

(observed) 2011-2016

Stable Good

(observed)

600-1800 Good

(observed)

2010-2015 Slight increase

Georgia 10? 40? Medium

(inferred) 2011-2015

Stable Medium

(inferred)

300-500 Medium

(estimated)

2011-2015

Greece 1914 1918 Good

(observed) 2015

Increasing Good

(observed)

1702-3513 Good

(observed)

2006-2015

Kazakhstan** 3000 3200 Medium

(estimated) 2003-2010

Increasing Medium

(estimated)

150 - 500 Medium

(estimated)

2006-2016

Mongolia@ 15 25 Medium


Decreasing Medium

(estimated)

Montenegro 20 55 Good


Increasing Good

(observed)

8-104 Good

(observed)

2005-2016

Romania 300 350 Good


Stable Good

(observed)

100/308-634/800 Good

(observed)

2006-2016


27

Country Minimum

Breeding

numbers

(pairs)

Maximum

Breeding

numbers

(pairs)

Quality

of data

Year(s) of the

estimate

Breeding

population trend

in the last 10

years (or 3

generations)

Quality

of data

Maximum size

of migrating or

non-breeding

populations in

the last 10 years

(or 3

generations)

Quality

of data

Year(s) of the

estimate

Migrating or

non-breeding

population

trend in the

last 10 years

Russia# 1500 2667 Medium


Increasing Medium

(inferred)

5000* Medium

(estimated)

2006-2016

Turkey 450 520 Good

(observed) 2016

Increasing Good

(observed)

800-2631 Good

(observed)

2007-2014

Ukraine 0 32 Good


Stable Medium

(estimated)

150-200 Medium

(estimated)

2004-2006

Uzbekistan 1 3 Poor

(suspected) 2000-2010

NA NA 218-9011 Good

(observed)

2003-2005

Azerbaijan

304-2759 Good

(observed

2009-2015

China@

70-130 Medium

(estimated)

2006-2016 Decreasing

Iran 0 0 Good


NA NA 3639-9.997 Good

(observed)

2008-2017 Increasing

Pakistan

1191-4533 Good

(observed

2010-2012

India

250-5000 Good

(observed

2007-2016


28

Country Minimum

Breeding

numbers

(pairs)

Maximum

Breeding

numbers

(pairs)

Quality

of data

Year(s) of the

estimate

Breeding

population trend

in the last 10

years (or 3

generations)

Quality

of data

Maximum size

of migrating or

non-breeding

populations in

the last 10 years

(or 3

generations)

Quality

of data

Year(s) of the

estimate

Migrating or

non-breeding

population

trend in the

last 10 years

TOTAL 7347 8993

Source:

** Zhatkanbayev, A. 2012. [Fauna of Kazakhstan] (In Kazakh) and A. Zhatkanbayev, pers. comm.

# Dinkevich 2008, V. Tarasov pers. comm., Christopoulou pers. comm., Y. Lokhman pers. comm., S.A. Soloviev pers. comm.

* very uncertain number

@ Batbayar, N., C. Lei, T. Mundkur and D. Watkins, 2017. Answers to Questionnaire on the Status of Dalmatian pelican in Mongolia and China.

1 Solokha, A. 2006. Results from the International Waterbird Census in Central Asia and the Caucasus 2003-2005. Wetlands International.

Notes on Quality:

Good (Observed)= based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from complete counts or comprehensive measurements.

Good (Estimated)= based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation.

Medium (Estimated)= based on incomplete quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation.

Medium (Inferred)= based on incomplete or poor quantitative data derived from indirect evidence.

Poor (Suspected)= based on no quantitative data, but guesses derived from circumstantial evidence.


29

Annex 2: PROBLEM ANALYSIS

Annex 2.1 General overview

Lists of threats relating to Dalmatian Pelican were initially compiled through the responses to

questionnaires for the development of the Status Report received from Albania, Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, FYR of Macedonia, Georgia, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan,

Montenegro, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and were later supplemented with

the responses by China and Mongolia (Table 3).

Following the compilation of the Status Report and during the AEWA Single Species Action

Planning Workshop for the Conservation of the Dalmatian Pelican, a preliminary problem

analysis, including the development of a preliminary problem tree (Figures 2a, 2b and 2c), was

compiled which identified the following three major stresses through which threats operate:

• Reduced adult survival

• Reduced reproductive output, and

• Habitat loss and degradation

These stresses were identified in all three flyway populations and were associated to various

threats presented in the problem trees below. After the workshop, the problem trees were

supplemented with information relating to Mongolia and China.

It should be noted that mainly due to the huge difference in population size between the EA

flyway (a few dozens of individuals) and the other two flyways (a few thousands of individuals

each) ranking of the importance and urgency of threats in the East Asian population gets

unavoidably “biased” in order to reflect this scale difference. For example, in the EA flyway

the loss of even one individual or one nest or one nesting island can be considered of critical

importance to this minute and dwindling population in contrast to the other two.


30

Table 3: Summary of the threats identified in each Principal Range State and their respective severity.

C= Critical, H= High, M= Medium, L= Low, NA = Not Applicable, ? = Probable.


31

Dalmatian Pelicans face a number of threats of a more global character, such as avian influenza,

effects of climate change acting through droughts and extreme weather events, and a

combination of high nutrient inputs to wetlands favouring anoxic conditions.

The Dalmatian Pelican had remained out of the list of species affected by avian influenza,

until the spring of 2015, when for the first time hundreds died massively apparently from avian

influenza in Bulgaria, Romania and western Russia.

Mass die-offs from cyanotoxins or/and botulism have been observed over the last twenty years

in SEE, where large breeding populations of pelicans occur, so events are more traceable than

in other sites with lower pelican numbers. They are both directly or indirectly connected to

inappropriate water management (regimes) and eutrophication of water bodies (high amounts

of nutrient inputs/nutrient pollution) leading to plankton (and especially blue-green algae)

blooms, which in turn lead to anoxic conditions. It is well established that the trend in shallow

waterbodies in the Mediterranean area is towards increasing eutrophic status and instances of

anoxia, so in combination with the ongoing climate change it is expected to increase in the

future. Hardly any information is available for both threats in the other two flyways.

Extreme weather events such as sudden, extremely harsh winter conditions during winter or

migration may also cause high adult mortality. Extreme weather phenomena will be more

frequent in the future due to the ongoing climate change. It has been already observed that

especially late cold spells (with snow, blizzards and persistently low temperatures mainly in

February, March and April) may heavily affect birds that have already laid eggs and incubate.

If cold spells last more than a week these may force incubating birds to abandon their eggs.

Although birds most probably return and re-lay later, however a large part of the breeding

investment is spent and this certainly lowers breeding success which in general is higher for

the early birds. There is little quantitative information on the geographical occurrence of this

threat.

Another more general issue which is long term and difficult to assess is the temporal

mismatch between breeding season and food availability. This is caused by the differential

effect of climate change upon some wintering and breeding sites of the migratory Dalmatian

Pelican populations. Mild winters encourage earlier migration and earlier initiation of laying

in some nesting sites occurring in higher latitudes or altitudes. However, it has already been

shown that at those sites spring temperatures and conditions are not that advanced and fish are

not available to pelicans very early in the season. This may thus create serious problems to

breeders which are unable to ensure adequate food and may lead to breeding failures. Finally,

drought is a natural phenomenon which generally reduces the qualities of individual wetlands

as DP habitats. Occurrence of droughts depend upon natural stochasticity, but ongoing climate

change favours their frequency and severity.

Annex 2.2 Threats relating to reduced adult survival

The following threats were related to reduced adult survival. They might be separated into

direct and indirect causes leading to low survival. Direct causes follow in order of decreasing

importance, however there are major differences in threat ranking between the three flyways.


32

Figure 2b: Problem tree relating to reduced adult survival.

Illegal killing

Despite being an iconic symbol for wetlands and most of its habitats being fully protected

almost everywhere, there is still high incidence of illegal killing of Dalmatian Pelicans, mainly

by shooting. Unpublished data from the SPP (Alexandrou & Catsadorakis, unpubl. data) show

that 1 out of 10 birds found dead or injured between 2012 and 2017 within Greece and very

close to its borders, had shots in their bodies. As pelicans are practically unmistakable, in SE

Europe all shooting seems to be deliberate but its motives are either unclear or attributed to

averting damage caused to fisheries. In several Asian countries killing is associated clearly to

illegal trade of body parts and derivatives (pouch, beak, “oil”) as well as taxidermy. In

Mongolia and at least parts of Kazakhstan killing is associated with obtaining the upper beak

to be used as a horse-scraper and prices are very high since it is probably a symbol of wealth.

→ Significance: Critical for EA, Low for WA and Local for SEE

By-catch in fishing gear

This is caused either through the simultaneous presence of birds and fishermen in the same

fishing locations, the use of illegal fishing practices or the use of unsuitable fishing gear. In

Burgas Lakes and Studen Kladenetz reservoir in Bulgaria, there are a few records of direct

mortality due to entanglement in fishing nets. One individual marked with transmitter in Greece

was found dead in Turkey due to entanglement in fishing gear. In E Asia the threat has been

ranked Critical but there is scarcity of relevant information, though in Mongolia fishing is


33

scarce and is not recorded as a threatening activity in the Yellow Sea coast of China by Melville

et al. (2016).

→ Significance: Critical for EA, Local for SEE and WA

Power line collisions

All available evidence indicates that collision with power lines may be quite an important threat

for the SEE flyway, due to much higher network density in the region. Yet, much work should

be done to identify all high-risk points for collision and take measures. In contrast, it seems

that this threat is of much lower importance for the WA flyways due to scarcity of power lines,

vastness of wetlands and milder relief. For the highly threatened EA population this threat can

be of great significance.

→ Significance: Unknown for SEE, WA and High for EA

Impacts of wind parks

Impact might be either displacement (diversion from optimal flying routes) or/and mortality

from collisions. This is still considered a potential threat since, so far, there is insufficient data

on the impact of windfarms on DP. However, since wind parks are built or are planned close

to important breeding, staging and wintering sites for the DP, at least in SEE, some kind of

long-term monitoring should be ensured. There might be a lack of appropriate processes for

windfarm siting in countries outside the EU, while in EU Member States processes exist but

do not necessarily ensure long-term monitoring of the issue.

→ Significance: Local/Unknown for SEE and EA and unknown for WA

Indirect causes include:

Depleted fish –stocks and disturbance at roost sites and feeding areas.

These are both threats that will cause exclusion of DP from a number of wetlands either due to

low densities of prey or due to unavailability of prey caused by disturbance at feeding sites.

Repeated disturbance at roosting sites will force DP not to use the site anymore. Neither of

these two indirect causes contributes to higher adult mortality, but in the long term they may

lead either to lower reproduction or indirectly to lower survival rates or even shift in

distribution. Depleted fish-stocks have been attributed to overfishing or/and to water

management.

→ Significance: Local/Unknown for SEE and EA and Unknown for WA

Annex 2.3 Threats relating to reduced reproduction output

Reduced reproduction output in the DP can be a result of:

1. Fewer birds breeding than those able to

2. Low hatching success caused by egg trampling by the birds themselves, eggs being thrown

out of nests, abandoned nests and eggs due to various reasons including disturbance, panic,

extreme weather events, wildfires and predation.

3. Low fledging success due to chick mortality related to reasons as above, but also avian

influenza, cyanotoxins and botulism and other epizootics.

4. Skipping of breeding attempts.


34

Figure 2a: Problem tree relating to reduced reproduction output

Human disturbance at colonies is considered among the severest threats to DP breeding

success. It is often caused by harassment aiming to force pelicans out of the area. It is also

caused unintentionally by people wishing to see or photograph colonies close-up. In other

cases, fishermen trying to force great cormorants out of the wetlands, disturb pelican colonies

which are used by cormorants as resting sites. In addition, disturbance is caused by illegal

hunting and movement of speedboats close to nesting islands. Often disturbers are not aware

of the negative impacts they cause to pelican breeding success. All such kinds of disturbance

may seriously disrupt the breeding effectiveness of pelicans and may even result to the total

abandonment of whole colonies or the complete skipping of a breeding season. Repeated low

levels of breeding success will be inadequate for the maintenance of the population and will

eventually lead to population decline. This is especially true in the case of exposed and

accessible colonies. Disturbance is higher in sites where there is a lack of guarding or/and

enforcement of appropriate regulations but also because in some range states not all colonies

are protected by law.

→ Significance: Low currently/High potentially for SEE, High for WA and EA

Reed bed fires

In many cases DP colonies lie within or at the margins of reed bed areas which catch fire either

through natural causes (rarely) or more often by humans for a variety of reasons, such as to


35

create grazing areas, hunting, improvement of reed quality for harvesting, mosquito control

and also clearing of ditches in order to enhance fish spawning and fish farming.

→ Significance: Local for SEE, Medium for WA, Critical for EA

Predation of eggs and chicks

Inappropriate nesting sites, accessible by land will also allow the occasional predation of eggs

and chicks by natural predators such as wild boar, red fox, jackal or invasive species (such as

racoon dog and American mink) as well as stray dogs. Avian predators include mainly magpies

and gulls but these may have access to chicks and eggs only when adults are away from nests

due to disturbance (see Human disturbance at colonies above).

→ Significance: Critical for EA, Local for SEE & WA

Trampling of eggs by cattle

This is noted to occur only in Mongolia where a few known large islands used by DP for nesting

become accessible by cattle during ice cover in winter and when in spring they still remain

there occasionally or potentially trampling pelican nests and eggs.

→ Significance: Critical for EA

Destruction of eggs & chicks by humans

In a few range states, reduced breeding performance is still caused via destruction of eggs and

chicks by humans, an act of vandalism, vengeance, or effort to scare away breeding pelicans.

→ Significance: Local for SEE & WA

Mortality at artificial nesting structures

Chick mortality occurs also in a few cases due to imperfect design and construction of artificial

nesting structures. Particularly, chicks may fall in the water from raised platforms and

especially when these are located at a large height above water level they are either injured or

die of starvation since they cannot be fed by their parents. Often ramps that would allow chicks

to climb back to the platform after they have fallen were not anticipated. Additionally, when

floating rafts are used by too many birds this may cause it to submerge and many low and

peripheral nests could be flooded.

→ Significance: Medium for EA and Local for SEE

Illegal collection of eggs and chicks

This threat occurs only in a few wetlands with low levels of patrolling and/or guarding against

environmental crimes so that it becomes possible to collect eggs and chicks illegally, in order

to supply egg collections or zoos with DP chicks.

→ Significance: potentially Local if resumed for SEE

Lack of sufficient or suitable nesting substrate

Lack of adequate nesting substrate and lack of suitable nesting substrate are similar but produce

very different effects on populations. Lack of adequate substrate allows breeding of only some

pairs but prevents population growth that will suit the overall habitat. Lack of suitable substrate

means that there is no breeding at all or repeated skipping of breeding attempts. The increasing

frequency and severity of droughts may affect both, since islands become connected to land


36

and either prevent breeding or allow access to terrestrial predators that lower breeding success.

Human uses of water that do not reserve sufficient quantities for wildlife aggravate the effects

of drought by increasing its severity and frequency. Erosion and degradation of nesting islands

may be caused by the birds themselves, weather phenomena and are aggravated by greater than

optimal numbers of birds and by extreme weather events.

Other causes include the use of inappropriate breeding sites by birds, either due to the lack of

suitable nesting substrate, or to the flooding of colonies caused by natural or man-made factors

and extreme weather conditions (storms, sudden increase of water level caused by deluges or

heavy snow melts, water management, etc.). Ice will degrade artificial nesting structures often

more rapidly than natural islands. Higher erosion rates are caused by inadequate

supplementation with sediments, mainly due to human interventions in places higher up from

the water basins.

→ Significance: Critical for EA, if no platforms potentially Local for SEE, Local/Unknown

for WA

Flooding of colonies

Often natural islands hosting colonies become flooded by suddenly rising water levels. These

unnaturally high water levels may be due to reservoir or wetland management by humans for

reasons other than conservation or to extreme weather events (e.g. deluges) which over the last

few years are becoming more frequent due to climate change. At a catchment level these events

might be aggravated by changes within the drainage basin related to thinning of vegetation

cover, management favouring surface outflow, erosion, etc.

→ Significance: Critical for EA, Local for SEE, Unknown for WA

Annex 2.4 Threats relating to habitat loss and degradation

These threats refer both to the more general matter of the loss and degradation of wetlands as

habitats for waterbirds, DP included, as well as to the more specific issues of the loss and

degradation of the particular places pelicans nest, rest and feed within the wetlands they occur.

Unfavourable water management

Water management in many wetlands, even if these are protected areas or reserves, is often

unfavourable to DP, this meaning that water management decisions are governed mainly or

exclusively by other needs such as irrigation, industry, fisheries, flood control, etc., which in

turn is exacerbated by the lack of awareness and understanding of the needs of DPs and the

impact of mis-management on DP habitats. Harmful decisions for water management are

seriously affected by the increasing droughts resulting from global climate change.

→ Significance: Low for SEE and WA, Medium for EA.

Land use change /Urbanisation & infrastructure development

Wetlands are still drained and converted to other land uses, mainly farmland, but also for

development of infrastructure for industrial expansion, housing and unsustainable tourism. In

China it seems that there are high rates of reclamation of tidal flats for agriculture, industrial

and urban development. Expansion of industry, market places and shopping centres are part of

the problem.


37

→ Significance: Local for SEE, Medium/Low for WA and High for EA

Unfavourable/lacking site management

Due mainly to incompetence, in some managed/protected areas there are unfavourable

management choices and decisions or complete lack of management which both may lead to

degradation of DP habitats. In some cases there is excessive infrastructure development,

excessive afforestation of catchments and lack of management, which might prove crucial for

the conservation of DPs.

→ Significance: Low for SEE and WA, High for EA.

Alien plants and fish

Many wetlands in which DP nest, stage over, rest or feed have been invaded by alien plants

and fish and the phenomenon is on the increase. In many cases, alien plants and fish disrupt

the functions of wetlands they settle, mainly through severe changes in vegetation and

competition with native species, and DP may be affected through alterations of their nesting,

resting and feeding habitats and the abundance of their prey.

→ Significance: Unknown for SEE and WA, High for EA.

Figure 2c: Problem tree relating to habitat loss and degradation

Annex 2.5 Knowledge gaps and needs

Breeding distribution of the Western Asian and particularly the East Asian populations

Although the DP may be considered a relatively well studied species, there are still important

gaps in the knowledge of its ecology and life traits that partly undermine effective decision

making for its conservation. The most important gap has to do with the distribution of the

breeding sites of the depleted and small East Asian population in Mongolia which may also

shift from year to year. Unless we obtain a clear picture of this fundamental piece of

information no effective conservation measures can be planned and implemented. In addition,


38

it is clear from the collected data that in Russia and Kazakhstan which together hold 50-80%

of the DP’s global population we are far from knowing the exact annual breeding distribution

of the species. It is not however unlikely that this info exits but only in Russian, Kazakh or

other language, thus hardly accessible to the English speaking world. In that case a concerted

translation effort must be made or rather the creation of a mechanism, most likely in an

international NGO such as BirdLife or Wetlands International, which will ensure this info is

made available in the English language and to the IUCN Pelican Specialist Group.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that a higher degree of networking and information compilation

and exchange is needed between people working for pelicans in these two countries and the

international pelican community. It is emphasised that due to the vastness of the areas and the

difficulties in access censuses from aircrafts seem to be the most appropriate method.

Population size and trends

It has been stressed in many parts of this document that the most crucial gap in our knowledge

for the global status of the species, relates to the lack of regular information about the

population size and trends especially of the populations in the WA flyway, where the bulk of

the global numbers occurs. The large size of the range areas, difficulties in accessibility and

limited resources are the main hindrances in achieving this. It is suggested that an effort is

made so that at least once every five years there is a country wide survey and census, most

likely both from land and air.

Migration and movements

In order to understand the population dynamics and trends of populations and especially of the

WA population, there is among others a need to establish which are the locations of the winter

quarters of each of the main breeding populations of the Western Asian flyway as well as their

exact migration routes and to what extent their movements and migrations to the southern

wintering sites are governed by weather and climate change effects. This knowledge will give

us the ability to identify and tackle threats faced by these birds during their migration trips.

Figure 2d: Problem tree relating to knowledge gaps

Winter ecology


39

The winter ecology of the species is also much less studied than its breeding ecology across its

distribution. For example, the actual impact of DP on fish farms and other fishing locations has

not been assessed so far. Also it is considered crucial to study the interspecific and intraspecific

relations of these birds in winter, their diets in key sites and the threats they face. Regarding

the highly threatened EA population it is emphasised that the possible patterns in distribution

and movements along the Chinese coastal provinces have not been studied as well as those in

inland wetlands along the Yangtze valley.

Population modelling

In SE Europe there is satisfactory monitoring of population sizes and trends at almost all

colonies but still overall population modelling is lacking which would shed light to the

dynamics of the several sub-populations and offer predictions about MVPs, survival

probabilities under different scenarios, a vital piece of information especially for the many

small colonies existing in SEE Europe.

Metapopulation structure

Although there is some limited understanding of the metapopulation structure on SE Europe,

based upon past ringing projects, this is lacking in the case of the W Asian flyway. As this

knowledge may only derive from genetic analyses there is much research to be done on the

genetic diversity and the gene flow of the species. These data will allow evaluating all crucial

information about the possible existence of discrete phylogenetic units of high conservation

value.

Interspecific relations

Additionally, the interspecific interactions between DP and other sympatric species of pelicans,

such as the Great White and the Spot-billed, as well as the various species of cormorant, are

not sufficiently understood (but see Catsadorakis et al. 1996, Doxa et al. 2012). There is much

significant understanding to be sought on issues such as competition for food and nesting space,

the indirect effects of persecution of cormorants to pelicans, communal feeding and its

importance, etc.

Impact of powerlines

Although repeatedly identified as a main cause of mortality for DP especially in SE Europe,

there are extremely few monitoring data (cf. Crivelli et al. 1988) on the impact of powerlines

and its geographical dimension.

Impact of windfarms

So far, there are only a few monitoring data on the impact of windfarms on the species, referring

to some bottleneck areas along the west coast of the Black Sea in Bulgaria, which are not very

alarming. However, focused monitoring should be planned and carried out in areas such as the

previous one, or other areas close to key breeding or staging sites for the species.

Impact of heavy metals


40

There is still limited knowledge on the real magnitude of the effects of heavy metals and other

pollutants. A few studies examined the content of pelican eggs in chlorinated hydrocarbons

(Fossi et al. 1984, Crivelli et al. 1989, Albanis et al. 1995, Crivelli 1996) in the Danube delta

and in two wetlands in Greece. To shed light on both issues, a very systematic effort should be

done to analyse large numbers of samples and compile data from large areas.

Impact of disease and parasites

Diseases and epizootics, such as botulism, cyanotoxins and avian influenza have taken heavy

tolls in DP deaths especially during the last years, however, they still remain poorly studied

and reported. Additionally, when high mortality is taking place necropsies often reveal heavy

infestations from internal parasites such as various species of nematodes, however, besides

taxonomical work hardly any studies have dealt with the effect these parasite loads may have

on the mortality rates of the DPs as well as their probable role on the ecology and performance

of the birds.


41

Annex 3: JUSTIFICATION OF CONSERVATION and/or MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Annex 3.1 Business-as-usual scenario (no recovery or control measures taken)

At least in SE Europe, where most wetlands are directly affected by human management of all

kinds, the DP is a totally management-dependent waterbird. This is mainly due to the

conspicuousness of these large, whitish birds themselves but most importantly, that of their

colonies. Due to this conspicuousness DP are vulnerable to disturbance and persecution at their

feeding, resting and –most importantly- nesting sites, which can be easily located and thus

easily harmed. In the absence of disturbance, especially at their breeding colonies, DPs are able

to increase quickly and maintain vigorous populations. Otherwise, and in addition to their

having very specific nesting habitat requirements, they are not able to withstand continuous

and systematic disturbance and persecution and then their populations will equally easily

plummet.

After the year 2000 the big picture observed is the following: In SE Europe most populations

are located in protected areas to a lesser or greater extent. In contrast to previous decades this

has led to an impressive reduction of disturbance at colonies and has allowed most populations

to increase or stabilise, benefitting also from new colonies launched through the contribution

of successful source-colonies such as Prespa in Greece. However, in this part of the world there

are many very small –sized colonies, especially at coastal areas which still suffer from a variety

of factors and they are even now dwindling (e.g. Messolonghi GR, Amvrakikos GR, Skadar

ME, Karavasta AL, Gediz delta TR, various Ukrainian colonies). If no measures are taken

within the next 25 years, some of these colonies will continue to shrink, some will fluctuate

hugely in reaction to conditions of specific years and some will become extinct.

Currently there are conservation and protection measures applied in many colonies in SE

Europe, especially aimed at keeping disturbance to a minimum and enhancing nesting habitats.

If these measures are no longer applied then it is absolutely certain that even big-sized colonies

(such as those of Prespa, Kerkini and Karla/GR) would start to decline rapidly. This would not

be the case for colonies occurring in remote and less accessible sites, even in protected areas

such as the Danube delta. They could suffer from large fluctuations, but they would probably

maintain a safe minimum population size.

In the Central and West Asian populations conditions are not so clear. Limiting factors for

populations are either not known at all or known insufficiently. There is no clear picture

whether all colonies in Russia and Kazakhstan have been identified. In addition, their trends

and reactions to pressures are also unknown. In comparison to their status described in the ‘70s,

‘80s and early ‘90s (Crivelli 1994), there appears to be a substantial increase in the overall

breeding population numbers. However, the exact spatial changes of the geographical range of

these colonies are poorly known and the real degree and frequency of human disturbance

cannot be assessed in an objective way. There is reliable information that some colonies are

entirely free of disturbance and some others suffer heavily from it, either regularly or only

occasionally and in a stochastic manner. It seems that colonies existing in and around large

wetlands or wetland systems lying at the southern and drier parts of Western Asian countries

(Kazakhstan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) and which are considered traditional for DP


42

nesting, are being abandoned and new sites are being colonised further north. We can easily

hypothesize that the ongoing climate change has had an important effect on this shift, both

through the negative effects on the hydrological regimes of southern wetlands and through

milder winters and springs that have allowed the colonisation of northern sites. But this has not

been systematically researched and available evidence is of a circumstantial and speculative

nature based only on indications.

According to all available knowledge the DPs that breed in Mongolia constitute a discrete

subpopulation which breeds in the Great Lakes Basin of Western Mongolia and overwinters at

the wetlands of the E and SE coast of China down to Hong-Kong. It remains uncertain whether

birds breeding in the extreme easternmost wetlands of Kazakhstan (around 48o.56 N and 84o.70

E, region of Lakes Zayzan and Markakol) migrate and over winter east with those of Mongolia

or south with the rest of the Kazakhstani populations.

Precise knowledge on the actual present status of DP in Mongolia is rather poor. In the past

there have been some good efforts to compile all available published information from

observations/records of DP in Mongolia and China during the breeding, migration and

wintering period (Shi et al. 2008 and Gombobaatar & Monks 2011). There are also some good

summaries of available information and compilation of records from projects in some years

(Barter et al. 2005, Batbayar 2005, Batbayar et al. 2007). The most updated information for

this population was provided in the frame of this project (Mundkur et al. 2017 and Batbayar et

al. 2007). In summary, the DP is protected by national legislation in Mongolia from killing,

nest destruction and disturbance, while in China protection covers only killing. There are no

recent conservation measures applied anywhere. There is an unofficial DP working group in

Mongolia but not in China. There is some effort by NGOs in Mongolia to work targeted on DP

but no real monitoring programs in the country or in the PAs specifically targeted to this

species, which is monitored within general waterbird monitoring schemes. Almost 100% of the

population in Mongolia are met within IBAs or/and Ramsar Sites or/and EAAFP Flyway

Network Sites or/and PAs under the national law, whilst the respective percentage is ca. 50%

of the population in China (source: Batbayar, N., C. Lei, T. Mundkur and D. Watkins, 2017.

Answers to Questionnaire on the Status of Dalmatian pelican in Mongolia and China.

Unpublished draft report to AEWA Secretariat and EAAFP Secretariat. Answers to the

questionnaire for the Review of the Status of the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus in the

East Asian Flyway).

If no further measures are taken to understand and try to counter the reasons that have led this

particular population to shrink, it is in dire risk of extinction in the next few decades.

Annex 3.2 Action Plan implementation scenario

During the last decade it has already been shown that the implementation of conservation

measures has led to the substantial increase both of colony size and productivity in small

colonies. This is mainly achieved through minimizing anthropogenic mortality causes and

ensuring less varying breeding success. It is crucial to ensure continuation of guarding for many

small, especially coastal, colonies across SE Europe. A good example is the 4-year

conservation project “Wetland Management and Dalmatian Pelican Conservation in the

Mediterranean Basin” (implemented by Noé Conservation and funded by MAVA and CEPF)


43

in the two small colonies of Karavasta Lagoon, Albania and Lake Skadar, Montenegro.

Disturbance was minimised, engagement of the local societies and authorities was enhanced

and artificial nesting platforms were provided. As a result the former colony almost doubled in

size from 19-29 pairs in 1998-2012 to 31-52 pairs in 2013-2017 (T. Bino, pers. comm.) while

the latter colony increased from 0-22 pairs in 1990-2012 to 31-53 pairs in 2013-2017 (A. Vizi,

pers. comm.). It is concluded that the continuation of these and similar measures would easily

permit these small colonies to recover to sizes recorded some decades ago, i.e. 225 pairs in the

sixties (T. Bino, pers. comm.). Furthermore, in Greece the two colonies situated in coastal

lagoons (Amvrakikos and Messolonghi wetlands) which together constitute 10-11% of the total

number of breeding pairs in the country (approx. 2000 pairs) also suffer heavily from

disturbance which results in very low breeding success over consecutive years. Effective

guarding against disturbance would easily permit these colonies to double their size within a

period of 10-20 years. The observed increase of DP populations in SE Europe is clearly the

result of conservation and management efforts applied in almost all sites hosting DP during

breeding, migration and wintering. It is imperative that these conservation management efforts

are maintained in order to maintain their favourable results. Only during the last 7 years there

have been 3 new colonies established without any human intervention in Greece (SPP,

unpublished data), two in Romania (M. Marinov jr., pers. comm.) and one in Bulgaria (BSPB,

unpublished data) after the installation of an artificial nesting structure. These colonies could

not survive in the absence of specific conservation and management measures, particularly

guarding and monitoring.

The case of the W Asian populations is a different one, as most but not all colonies are situated

in remote and inaccessible sites. We do not have a clear picture of the reasons which have led

to the increase of the breeding populations in Russia and Kazakhstan. Thus, in order to be able

to anticipate what will be the effects of the ISSAP implementation on these populations it is

first considered essential to establish a standardized monitoring system which will provide

reliable data about size, distribution and ecological traits of most, if not all, of these

populations. This is not an easy task due to the vastness of these countries, the inaccessibility

of DP wetlands, limited resources and low availability of ornithologists. It therefore must be

the primary target of the ISSAP in these countries.

The same situation holds for the Mongolian population, however since this is at the brink of

extinction, it is crucial and urgent to be given priority and act as quickly as possible to avert its

extinction. Before, or at least in parallel with, any kind of conservation measures are

implemented in both Mongolia and China, there is an imminent need to first locate and identify

all nesting sites of the species in Mongolia and all wintering sites in China. Following this, a

concerted effort should be made to tag birds, preferably with satellite transmitters and track

them for as long as possible in order to shed more light to their migration routes and the hazards

they meet during migration. Since the large decline of this population has taken place a while

ago in the ‘90s and 2000s, a multi-disciplinary study should be undertaken to shed light to the

reasons underlining this dramatic decline, by combining biological, social and environmental

data. This is badly needed because the reasons of decline are not yet clear despite significant

efforts so far. The results of these two initiatives will provide identification of the reasons of

decline and promote effective conservation measures.


44

Annex 4: REFERENCES

Albanis, TA, G.D. Hela & D. Hatzilacou. 1995. Organochlorine residues in eggs of Pelecanus

crispus and its prey in wetlands of Amvrakikos Gulf, North-western Greece. Chemosphere

11-12: 4341-4349.

Alexandrou,O., G. Catsadorakis & D. Portolou. 2016. 1st SE European pelican census. Poster

presented at the 8th HELECOS Conference, Thessaloniki, October 20-23, 2016.

Barter, M., L. Cao, L. Chen & G. Lei. 2005. Results of a survey for waterbirds in the lower

Yangtze floodplain, China, in January–February 2004.Forktail 21: 1–7.

Batbayar, N. 2005.Conservation of the critically endangered eastern sub-population of

Dalmatian pelicans in western Mongolia. Report to the Rufford Small Grant Committee. 8

pp.

Batbayar, N., A. Bräunlich, T. Natsagdorj, S. Setev & G. Sovd. 2007. Conservation of the

critically endangered East Asian population of Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus in

western Mongolia. BirdingASIA 7: 68–74

Catsadorakis, G. & A.J. Crivelli. 2001. Nesting Habitat Characteristics and Breeding

Performance of Dalmatian Pelicans in Lake Mikri Prespa, NW Greece. Waterbirds 24: 386-

393.

Catsadorakis, G., M. Malakou & A.J. Crivelli. 1996. The effects of the 1989/1990 drought on

the colonial waterbirds nesting at Lake Mikri Prespa, Greece, with special emphasis on

pelicans. Colonial Waterbirds 19: 207-218.

Catsadorakis, G. 2016. An update of the status of the two Pelecanus species in the

Mediterranean–Black Sea region. In: P. Jesou, J. Sultana, J. Walmsley & H. Azafzaf (eds).

2016. Conservation of marine and coastal birds in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the

UNEP-MAP, RAC/SPA Symposium, 20-22 February 2015, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp. 47-

53.

Catsadorakis, G., O. Onmuş, S. Bugariu, O. Gül, D. Hatzilacou, O. Hatzofe, M. Malakou, T.

Michev, T. Naziridis, H. Nikolaou, A. Rudenko, D. Saveljic, S. Shumka, M. Sıkı & A.J.

Crivelli. 2015. Current status of the Dalmatian Pelican and the Great White Pelican of the

Black Sea / Mediterranean flyway. Endangered Species Research 27: 119-130.

Crivelli, A.J. 1987. The ecology and behaviour of the Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus

Bruch, a world endangered species. Commission of the European Communities and Station

Biologique de la Tour du Valat, 94 p. + Appendices.

Crivelli A.J. 1994. The importance of the former USSR for the conservation of pelican

populations nesting in the Palearctic. In: Crivelli A.J., Krivenko, V.G., Vinogradov V.G.

(eds) Pelicans in the former USSR. IWRB Special Publication No. 27, Slimbridge, UK.

Crivelli, A. J., G. Catsadorakis, H. Jerrentrup, D. Hatzilacos & T. Michev. 1991. Conservation

and management of pelicans nesting in the Palearctic. ICBP Technical Publication No 12:

137-152

Crivelli A.J., G. Catsadorakis & Th. Naziridis. 1997.Pelecanus crispus Dalmatian Pelican.

Birds of the West Palearctic Update 1: 149-153.

Crivelli, A.J. (compiler) 1996. Action Plan for the Dalmatian pelican (Pelecanus crispus) in

Europe BirdLife International.


45

Crivelli, A.J., G. Catsadorakis, D. Hatzilacou, D. Hulea, M. Malakou, M. Marinov, T. Michev,

Th. Nazirides, N. Peja, G. Sarigul & M. Sıkı. 2000. Status and population development of

Great White and Dalmatian pelicans, Pelecanus onocrotalus and P. crispus breeding in the

Palearctic. Medmaravis 5th Pan-Mediterranean Seabird Symposium, Malta. October 1998,

pp. 38-45.

Crivelli, A.J., D. Hatzilacou & G.Catsadorakis. 1998. The breeding biology of the Dalmatian

Pelican Pelecanus crispus.Ibis 140: 472–481.

Crivelli, A.J., H. Jerrentrup & T. Mitchev. 1988. Electric Power Lines: A Cause of Mortality

in Pelecanus crispus Bruch, a World Endangered Bird Species, in Porto-Lago, Greece.

Colonial Waterbirds 11:301-305.

Crivelli, A.J., L. Marsili, S. Focardi & A. Renzoni. 1989. Organochlorine Compounds in

Pelicans (Pelecanus crispus and Pelecanus onocrotalus) nesting at Lake Mikri Prespa,

North Western Greece. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 62: 383-

389.

Del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott & J. Sargatal. (eds) 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 1.

Barcelona: Lynx Editions.

Dinkevich, M.A. 2008. Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus. Pp.109-116 in: G.S.

Dzhamirzoev and S.A. Bukreev (eds). [Action Plans for conservation of globally threatened

bird species in Caucasus Eco-region]. Russian Bird Conservation Union, Institute of

Biogeography and Landscape Ecology at Daghestan State Pedagogical University.

Makhachkala, Moscow, 208 p. [In Russian].

Doxa, A., K. Theodorou, D. Hatzilacou, A.J. Crivelli, A. Robert. 2010. Joint effects of density-

dependence and extreme environmental variation on the viability of a social bird species.

EcoScience 17: 203-215.

Doxa, A., A. Robert, A.J. Crivelli, G. Catsadorakis, T. Naziridis, H. Nikolaou, F.Jiguet & K.

Theodorou. 2012. Shifts in breeding phenology as a response to population size and climatic

change: A comparison between short- and long-distance migrant species. The Auk 129: 753-

762.

Doxa, A., K. Theodorou, A. Robert , D. Hatzilacou, G. Catsadorakis, H. Nikolaou & A.J.

Crivelli.2006. Preliminary demographic analysis of pelican populations in Greece. Poster

(Aberdeen 2006).

Fossi, C., S. Focardi, C. Leonzio & A. Renzoni. 1984. Trace-metals and chlorinated

hydrocarbons in birds’ eggs from the delta of the Danube. Environmental Conservation 11:

345-350.

Gombobaatar, S., E.M. Monks (compilers), Seidler, R., Sumiya, D., Tseveenmyadag, N.,

Bayarkhuu, S., Baillie, J. E. M., Boldbaatar, Sh., Uuganbayar, Sh. (eds). 2011. Regional

Red List Series, Vol.7, Birds. Zoological Society of London, National University of

Mongolia and Mongolian Ornithological Society. (In English and Mongolian)

Melville, D.S., Y. Chen & Z. Ma.2016.Shorebirds along the Yellow Sea coast of China face an

uncertain future – a review of threats.Emu116: 100–110.

Mix, H. M. & A. Bräunlich. 2000. Dalmatian Pelican. In: Reading, R.P.; Miller, B. (ed.),

Endangered animals: a reference guide to conflicting issues, pp. 78-83. Greenwood Press,

London.

Mundkur, T., T. Langendoen & D. Watkins (eds). 2017. The Asian Waterbird Census 2008-

2015 -results of coordinated counts in Asia and Australasia. Wetlands International, Ede.


46

Nelson, J.B. 2005. Pelicans, Cormorants and their Relatives. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

UK.

Peja, N., G. Sarigul, M. Sıkı & A.J. Crivelli. 1996. The Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus,

nesting in Mediterranean lagoons in Albania and Turkey. Colonial Waterbirds 19: 184–189.

Shi, H.Q., L. Cao, M.A. Barter & N.F. Liu 2008. Status of the East Asian population of the

Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus: the need for urgent conservation action. Bird

Conservation International 18: 181–193.

Shiirevdamba, T., Y. Adiya, & E. Ganbold, editors. 2013. Mongolian Red Book. Ministry of

Environment and Green Development of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar.

Wetlands International. 2018. “Waterbird Population Estimates”. Accessed from:

wpe.wetlands.org on 20 March 2018.

Date post:	05-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

- Final Draft - International Single Species Action Plan ... · Contributors to the International...

Documents